Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukasm | Hacker News Reader

The elites will go full throttle on "bullshit jobs" — after all, if unemployment hits 50%, who’s going to consume their crappy products? Give people a UBI? Hah! So they can start taking an active interest in politics? AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

View on HN

The only interest people will have in politics would be be around their UBI and other benefits. The old saying of once they know they hold the keys to the treasury they vote to direct it to themselves thing.

I don't think UBI is going to lead to significantly more interest in political involvement in an age where people are socializing less and spending hours a day scrolling algorithmic feeds.

People change what they do when they go from full-time work to UBI teaters. You could either argue that they will go further into the feeds or something else, but to assume statis is suspect. So you actively have to argue that.

Joe Beergut sits in front of the television (scene from 1995). Is it relevant that he worked hard from eight to five prior to that? Probably.

If you look at, for example, post-industrial regions of the Nordic countries where a good amount of people have been terminally on state benefits, they didn't start using all that free time for political involvement.

Good point, and I see where you are coming from. The difference compared to UBI would be that UBI is unconditional while “terminal state benefits” can require means testing. Where they might intersect or not is that they are poor. Having time is one precondition for political engagement but having money also helps.

Overall I’m not a fan of UBI. Especially if it would create people who you indirectly describe in the way you do. I don’t want a society of the haves and the merely can-survivs.

But this feels disconnected. The “terminal state benefits” group have been viewed that way long before algorithmic feeds and before the socializing less part got really obvious. So which is it? Both, all of the above?

I wouldn't agree that having money is necessarily for grassroots political involvement. Perhaps the opposite: since the mid 20th century, skint students have been among the most active political forces in many countries. True, deep-pocketed figures often then step in and try to use their money to coopt those young people's political energy, but this is often a negative thing.

I don't think soldiers on the state's payroll are going to take much interest in political involvement in an age where they spend hours a day drilling and playing cards. — Petrograd, 1917.

The elite won't need to sell anything to anyone. With lands, mines, solar energy what would they need people for?

I'm positive that the elite will soon only need a really really small number of people (especially in their vicinity) for their happiness. Robots will be able to provide food, safety, entertainment, health, in a self-sustaining manner.

I predict that if we let the elite do whatever they want, they would eliminate common people (actively or passively) because they wouldn't need them.

In my opinion the only thing that can stop this scenario unfolding is the government which currently has the power over the elite, and currently is governed by the people (more or less). I frankly don't think any other scenario is realistic (e.g. a number of Robin Hood terrorists appear, or the elite just wouldn't let people die because of their activities).

Currently I strongly support the idea of disempowering the elite: making it a law that a single person can have at most X amount of wealth. (For organizations and funds that would be wealth/member.) Also there need to be more guarantees that the government (the only holder of power) is controlled by the people and is working for the people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com